Brief post-match score tracking meeting with alliances

[RoyM]

In most tournaments we've participated in, immediately at the conclusion of the match and before field reset, the head referee has held very brief meeting including a representative of each drive team to go over the scoresheets. This allows everyone to verify and understand how the match was tallied with the evidence still on the field in case there is a disagreement. Is this actually a required, or perhaps only a recommended practice?

[Evergreen]

Not sure if it's required for the referee to brief alliances captains on the scorecard, but most of the events we went to, it seemed it's the common practice, but not required. I guess if the score was incorrectly recorded, you had to dispute within 3 matches.

Looked that Referee manual:

https://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/ftc/referee-and-head-referee.pdf

Page 17: The Head Referee will communicate with the Teams as necessary.

BTW, the referee did this in our league events, there weren't any issues on scoring.

[FTC7253]

At our first qualifier in MI, this did not happen. Scores are not known until they are posted on the feed - usually at least 1 match later. This makes preparing a dispute difficult.
In one of the matches, the referee motioned to a score keeper that our alliance had two auton glyphs in proper key locations, but this did not show up on the score.

[JoAnn]

Hi Folks, This is not a required or a recommended practice for FIRST Tech Challenge. My best guess is that most regions do not meet with teams at the end of a match to go over the tracking sheet. Teams are able to ask a question about a match score for a short period of time after the match.

JoAnn

[FTC7253]

JoAnn - How do the teams know to question the score if they don't know the proposed score until at least 1 match later? It would really help to know things like: did auton glyphs count as scored, how many tele glyphs are counted, and what penalties were imposed.
The ruling on auton glyphs scored needs to be provided before teleop. One of our teams received an 80pt penalty in our first qualifier. We grabbed 2 pit glyphs in auton - after placing the preloaded glyph. One of the pit glyphs fell on our back, and the other appeared to land just in the cryptobox.
Both the preloaded and extra glyph were REALLY close calls - the drive team (looking down from directly above the blue alliance wall cryptobox) thought both were scored.
There was no indication from the refs/scoretrackers on whether or not the 2 auton glyphs counted.
When teleop started, they pushed both of the auton glyphs further into the cryptobox - drawing a penalty. One glyph on our back and pushing two further into the box.
Rule clarifications have stated that alignment adjustments can be made to any number of scored glyphs. But the judgement on scored status is not clear.

We did not get scoring info in a timely enough manner for us to question the ruling. For the auton scoring, refs could simply point at the each auton glyph and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. This would allow the team to know the glyphs status when starting teleop.
Perhaps the "more than 2 glyph rule" and allowable alignment clarification could be adjusted to allow more than 2 glyphs to be controlled when inside the trianglular safe zone.

Our same team received another 80 pt penalty in another match - for pushing/aligning glyphs that were unquestionably within the cryptobox. There seems to be have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the rule specifics (that I believe has been addressed). The relevant thing here is that the team again didn't know until over a match later - by which time they were already
preparing to queue. The increased pace of matches this year - while a great thing - intensifies the pressure of visiting the question box.

So, long story short. It would be very helpful to have a very brief post-match overview so the team members understand the scoring judgements. It would also be helpful (and simple) to have some clear post-auton indication of glyph scoring status.

Thanks for your consideration.

[FTC6180]

I think there needs to be at least some discussion after autonomous and after teleop about how the points were or weren't scored. This push to keep things moving along quickly might make it more enjoyable to watch but these students have worked scores of hours on these machines and we need to get it right. The competition isn't for the spectators. I just don't understand the reasoning behind not being as transparent as possible regarding scoring.

[RoboticsFun]

They haven't been reviewing scores with teams at the league meets I've attended. I hope score trackers are marking those "keys" correctly, seems like that one could be easy to miss. Haven't seen a lot of disputes in the question box this year yet either, so they seem to be doing okay.

[RoboticsFun]

In one of the matches, the referee motioned to a score keeper that our alliance had two auton glyphs in proper key locations, but this did not show up on the score.

This is what we're concerned about, too. My team is going to make sure to say "we got a key" at the end of autonomous if they score one (we have the auto programmed for them).

[FTC7253]

I think it would also be very quick for the scorekeeper to do a 1sec test on questionable auton glyphs. They typically have a clipboard in their hands for taking score. Simply run the clipboard along to adjacent cryptobox fins. If it contacts the glyph - score, if not, "you lose, you get nothing. Good day, sir."

[Alec]

In most tournaments we've participated in, immediately at the conclusion of the match and before field reset, the head referee has held very brief meeting including a representative of each drive team to go over the scoresheets. This allows everyone to verify and understand how the match was tallied with the evidence still on the field in case there is a disagreement. Is this actually a required, or perhaps only a recommended practice?

Thanks for sharing!!! It is great to learn that referees and tournament organizers have taken the initiative to implement a sensible procedure for validating match scores. I think that all tournament organizers should follow this lead and replace the question box with the post-match meeting described by RoyM.